The above examples indicate a marked, and perhaps a growing, tendency to favor who and which, and to restrict that to the office of a demonstrative pronoun. As for the assumed need of clearness in discriminating between who or which and that, it does not appear to have occurred to Macaulay, De Quincey, Coleridge, George Eliot, Matthew Arnold. The only prominent writer who seems to favor that is Carlyle; perhaps his use of it is a Scotticism.

The general device for designating a co-ordinative relative clause is to enclose it in commas (see § 131). E. g.:

My father, who was a young man at the time and knew some of the persons involved, has often told me this story.

A restrictive relative clause need not be thus punctuated, and is not, according to the practice of the best proofreaders. E. g.:

Poems are separated one from another which possess a kinship of subject or of treatment far more vital and deep than the supposed unity of mental origin which was Wordsworth's reason for joining them with others.-MATTHEW ARNOLD: Poems of Wordsworth, Preface, p. xii.

86. Modifiers.-Under this head are here included not only adverbs proper but phrases expressive of time, place, manner, and the like. The following are constant sources of confusion: Only (not only-but also); at least; at all events; either—or; than (not adverbial expressions, but treated here for convenience).

Only is properly placed immediately before the word or clause which it qualifies; e. g.:

He is only eighteen.

He arrived only yesterday.

Only he knows of this.

This position is the proper one for not only-but also:

The lightning struck not only the tree but also the barn.

But in a very simple sentence only-modifying the subject

or the object-may follow it without causing confusion;

e. g.:

He only is left.

I saw him only.

In the following much-discussed passage from Addison:

By greatness I do not only mean the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole view,

the whole structure is faulty, and cannot be remedied by merely transposing only. Addison really meant to say:

By greatness I mean, not so much the bulk of any single object, as the largeness of a whole view.

It is also to be kept in mind that only is now frequently used in the sense of but, however, and in this sense always stands at the beginning; e. g.:

You may tell this if you wish; only do not mention my name.

Than. In such phrases as:

I like peaches better than apples.
Henry is older than William,

there is no ambiguity. But:

William likes Henry better than James

is ambiguous. It may mean either that W. likes H. better than he likes J., or that W. likes H. better than J. likes H. To avoid ambiguity such forms of comparison must be written out in full, as:

William likes Henry better than he likes James; or,

William likes Henry better than James likes him.

Even this emendation might not pass with the hypercritical, who would declare he, him, to be ambiguous. But the ordinary reader would be satisfied. For the writer who really meant to say that

William likes Henry better than Henry likes James; or,
William likes Henry better than James likes William,

would be careful to say so.

At least; at all events. These are placed just after the words which they modify. Thus:

He at least is ready,

means that he is ready, though the others may not be; but

He knows how to read at least,

means that he can read, but perhaps cannot sing. Either or should immediately precede that which they modify. Thus:

You can either go or stay at home,

is correct. But it is faulty to write:

You can either go to New York or to Boston.

It is better to write:

You can go either to New York or to Boston.

Misrelated Participle.-This is a partieiple which fails to indicate the noun (or pronoun) with which it is really connected. E. g.:

Mentioning this fact to my friend, he replied, etc.

Here the only noun (pronoun) with which mentioning can be grammatically connected is friend (he). To make both sense and grammar, the wording should be:

When I mentioned this fact to my friend, he replied, etc.; or,

On my mentioning this fact, etc.

Such faulty constructions are common in rapid writing. They are due to careless mechanical imitation of legitimate constructions, like:

Mentioning this fact to my friend, I was surprised to hear him reply. where mentioning and I are correctly related; or,

My friend mentioning this fact to me, I replied, etc.,

where the first clause is a correct absolute construction. 87. Dislocation of Clauses.-Frequently a clause cor

rect in itself is put in the wrong place, thereby producing confusion and sometimes absurdity. E. g.:

At her mother's death Harriet was left wholly dependent upon her elder sister, who five years before had married George, for counsel and support.

At first sight this reads as if we were called upon to commiserate the elder sister for having married a husband for the sake of counsel and support. But the writer really meant to say:

At her mother's death Harriet was left-for counsel and supportwholly dependent upon her elder sister, who, etc.

Clauses introduced by if, unless, though (although), are frequently ambiguous. The ambiguity may be avoided, if the writer will bear in mind that the condition expressed in such words remains in force as long as the construction is unchanged. Therefore do not introduce if, unless, etc. in a continuous construction unless you wish to let the condition remain in force. E. g.:

The fire will spread, if the engines do not come soon, and much property will be destroyed.

Here and continues grammatically the condition; if the engines do not come, if much property will be destroyed. The awkwardness is easily cured:

If the engines do not come soon, the fire will spread and much property will be destroyed.

It would be impossible to classify all the blunders due to misplacing clauses. They are of every conceivable variety. E. g. :

Passengers are requested to purchase tickets before entering the cars, at the company's office.

He was asked to play a solo on the violin, of his own composing. No rules can be devised against blunders like these. Only one general caution may be of help-namely, to treat every modifying clause upon the a priori assumption, § 74, that it is out of place until it is clearly shown to be in

place. The root of the evil lies in the natural disposition to write as we speak. But this disposition is dangerous unless controlled. In conversation we rely upon gestures, and especially upon the intonations of the voice, to make our meaning clear. These aids disappear, of course, in writing. Here we must rely solely upon the written or printed sign. Common sense, therefore, should teach us to put the signs close together only when the thoughts expressed by them are closely connected.